tv [untitled] November 28, 2014 5:30pm-6:01pm PST
of moving back in, and i will call and i will continue it in the enhanced relocation and in the land lords and finelely we would welcome one of the final decision as a measure of support for too many well rounded san francisco dispensaries nowhere except for san francisco (inaudible) and the lack of public officials that the supporters and slots here and (inaudible) and so now i realize this is not, and i want you to purely for the medical cannabis but i think that planning and the doening administrator should not have taken away the permit without informing us at least or they could have offered the discorrection. and at least they are extending the closure period and as a matter of fact, the department
of public health can offer this concessions or considerations for dispensaries such as a lower permit fee, and the possible reopening during the permit process, which you would need for the new and for the new location. so i am asking for your discretion it will not make a difference but we will not be able to move back in because the building was sold. >> did you say that you cannot move in because the building was sold. >> the dr does not seem interested in renting to us now. >> thank you. >> but it is a change with your decision. >> thank you. >> mr. pappas, most of your brief was a series of redone e-mails. and is there a reason why you did not provide the original
e-mails. and previeded the e-mails to myself and the two month period. and also a letter of determination, and from january to march. mr. siger and who i met in 2005. and also in 2012. when we were discussing the relocation, and i thought that we had a good relationship but for some reason. that you asked me to provide and reopening information and what we had done and you can see that the e-mails. and it is active and pretty much, you know, you said at the beginning is that i understand why they call it... and i believe that the discretion shoulding offered by that closure. >> i have a question. so, from the time that you were closed was there any activity on the premises? >> we had the delivery service
and we maintained the rent until may, because the department of public health says that any medicine used for delivery should come out that have address and to be honest with you that is not what happens. we kept the address and because you didn't want to and we were considered the landlord and so we did have the location on the block where it was. but, you know, we provided the service to may of 2012 and it did not seem feasible and it is not the kind of service that we offered to our patients. >> other the question would be so he was not charging you rent during that period. >> no we paid rent to may of 2012 and because of the delivery service was not, you know, we didn't have the revenue. >> i am talking about from after 2012, to the current time sir. >> we did not pay rent but the space was kept open for us. and there is a letter. >> was that being done on the property during that time? >> there was nothing at the time. >> we kept it open because they were hope thating we would move back in.
>> and beginning of 2013, it was discussions for 2 or 4 months. >> okay. >> and which (inaudible) >> thank you, is there anyone here representing the subject property owner? >> seeing none, then we will hear from the zoning administrator. >> the subject property is located within an rc 4 zoning district and the subject medical dispensary opened in march of 2005, in november of that year, the board of supervisors adopted a compassionate care act, which did create the regulations for how we deal with the mcds in san francisco and one of the
rules that end the regulations is that it cannot be located in 1,000 feet of a pool or a recreation facility, primarily deck indicated to the people that are 18 years or younger and there was an exception for the properties that established prior to april of 2005. and given that this use, commenced in march of 2005. they were eligible and to be grandfathered in under the provision and the planning commission approved the use in october of 2007 as it has been reported the federal government had issued and fairly threatens letters to property owners that ultimately resulted in the closure of the storefront activities of this mcd location. on november 11th of 2011. and we could sympathize and what led to the closure of the use and it has been noted, that the use continued on, and some
what, haphazard until may of 2012, when the lease terminated and after that time and during 2012 rntion did he work with the staff on kind of what could result here in terms of reopening at this location, also and helping to look at other locations, with it today and to know that you recounted that he worked extensively and had a good working relationship and did work with him, about the process to reopen, and thinking that it was, you know, there was some comments and discussions about reopening that it was seemed imminent and at that time in 2012, you know, you have been, through perhaps, early 2013, that they could have reopened at that location but the fact is that they did not reopen at that location, and i think that it has been
stated. and trying to find and give the support to the property owner that will make them more comfortable with allowing these to reopen and it was not really until november or december of last year, where they did kind of move forward, and make that the path would be clear to go ahead and reopen. you know, i think that there was always the intent to reopen at that location, but the fact that they were closed. they were closed from november from 2011, and the storefront operations which is what they were approved for and they were not approved for a delivery only use, and we looked at the last date that they operated as a delivery use and when they actually last occupied the property, and in may of 2012, and we feel that we did exercise the level of discretion there and extending a path.
and the section, 9.3 up is really very clear and in what is it considers. and it was contained in our letter of termination and response and if an mcd closes for a dur race longer than 18 months or if the mcd license is revoked by dph, for 3315 and it was not revoked but, our position is that it did, and it was closed for a duration longer than 18 months and then, it will be considered abandoned and any planning commission shall be null and void and as we noted this is 1,000 feet of school and under the planning code requirements, a new mcd could not be established for this location and so they cannot reopen because reopening would require new approvals. the letter of the determination request was that we have been formed him of the beginning of this year and the letter of determination was submited in june and we responded over the summer, and we think that the standard here for review of the letter of determination is
whether there is an error or a use of discretion and the arguments is that perhaps, i did not exercise enough discretion, and allowing the use to reopen. we made the effort to look at other location and if there are any changes in the mcd legislation that will allow the use to be restored, you know, we will be more than happy to process an application for him and, however, given the facts and given the very plain language of the planning code these have been closed for more than 18 months and abandoned and cannot restore at this location. and they will defer any questions. >> there is some dispute as to the exact closure date that would start the 18 months toll length. >> in my mind, no, because what mr. pappas represented to us as the closer dates and the storefront service and in november of 2011, they stopped delivery and they didn't have a
lease at all after may of 2012, apparently dph did not note it in their system as closed until later in 2012, and however, the use has been closed for several months at that point and i think that it was a question of updating the record. >> it was dph's difference. >> and it was closed and what the planning close said, and they were closed by any and all definition after may of 2012. and at the time they requested the letter of termination it was two years since they had closed and since they have kind of abandoned the lease entirely, they lost the lease entirely. >> there also seems to be some contention that the department never gave them a heads up and maybe you should get move and maybe it was already too late at that point. but, in the normal course of events, when that situation occurs, would the planner lay that out as a issue? >> at the time in 2012, when he
was discussing it with him and he keeps looking at other locations as well. and it is not just that he would want to reopen immediately and we would say at that time in 2012, yes, we are telling you now that you can reopen now and we will look at other locations, they never acted on that. and time passed and time passed, and they came up with the provision for something that was added in 2011 but it was still effective here, and you know, we, we did our best to work with him and help him out and you know, it was not, and we can't afford the one of every planning code provision that may or may not apply to every property at all times, it is in the law and it is clear in the law and the burden on him to know and understand the law and we told them at the time that he was asking the questions that he could, restore the use, but did he not act in a timely fashion. >> yes, go ahead. >> and mr. sanchez.
neither the brief provided the substanation of dates if you are counting the dates just from the what was prepted both by both parties. to clear the excess of 18 months, how do you know that example that the lease was up may of 2012. he told us, >> i understand that it was a lot of verbal but was anything provided. >> it was a letter of determination and he informed us that they had lost the lease in may of 2012. and so in our letter of determination, the drop, and it ended nei understand that. >> because your letter of determination, clearly states that it was based upon the information that he provided. but was there any factual documentation provided in
addition to the... >> we, any additional information that would have proved otherwise, would have been, you know, helpful, but we relied on the information that he provided and did not ask for the further evidence of the information that he provided. my question is, is that i understand that it is the law and he is subject to that. that 188-month rule is pretty critical and is that something that is not commonly known in the department. >> it is in the planning code and it is one of the rules that is publicly... and when is leaning to, and on the regular basis and they can see that he slowly atrying to get this going on. that they would say, hey, you have got three more months to get your shop opened. >> i think that he never asked how long that he has and he was
looking at other locations and so we were doing our best to answer all of the questions and is seems that, if they have the ability to move back in, within the 18 months, they would have done so. >> they did not do so. we told them within the 18 months tha, they could reopen at this location. they failed to do so. they failed to act on that. advice, and they also, you know, have looked at other locations as well. and you know, and did not ultimately pursue any of those other locations. >> okay. >> thank you. >> thanks. >> one quick question. does the permit site specific? >> yes. >> okay. >> thank you. >> we will take the public comment on this now and can i see a show of hands how many people plan to speak on this item? >> okay, thank you. >> if you could, line up along the far wall that will help us and if you have not already, if you could fill out a speaker
card and the first perp can come up to speak. president lazarus, two minutes. >> each speaker will have two minutes. >> i come before you in support of the po and the zoning decision regarding the historic compassionate tree and i just received a text from i am also a district six community organizer and i received a text from the supervisor jane kim's legislative aid, saying that they wish to register their support of this appeal as well.
and access agrees that this permit was not abandoned but interrupted and that the impact report from the legal committee of the task force, clearly states and it is critical to neighborhood safety. but, equally is important as understanding that this area has no safe access for true patients that most living below the poverty line is below this. and sf was wiped clean of many of the historic caring and community based mcds. the patients that the law was defined for was left unserved as the commercial survived and the patients were left out in the cold. remembering, why, and for whom we created the safe access as a city needs to be in your heart and your minds as you vote tonight, thank you. >> i also have several speaker cards that are in support, and
also, 15 letters from disabled patients of district six. >> okay. >> thank you. >> okay. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please? >> you can come forward. >> next speaker please? >> good evening, commissioners, my name is david gold man, and i am a former member also as well of the san francisco cannabis task force and a patient advocate for 5 and a half years i was the chairman of the san francisco chap turf americans for the safe access for nation's largest advocacy organization and i am also a home owner san francisco and i have lived here for 41 years. i am here in support of the appeal by mr. pappas. and as the divinty tree was opened, it had literally the
final quality medicine in san francisco and as a patient advocate it is my responsibility to check on the quality of medicine for the quality assurance as well as poe potentcy and the quality was unsurpassed and secondly wh, it was opened they had an amazing compassion program, where the people can come in and who my experience as
and i miss it, i miss it. i would sure like to see it be restored to that location again. one other point that i would like to make is that when he was in... the dispensary there, there was not one complaint from the neighbors while he was there and so he was an exemplary dispensary for the model for the city and the community. please reinstate his permit. thank you so much. >> next speaker please? >> my name is charles malcom and i am strongly opposed to the cannabis club reopening, when it was there before, and
there was constant noise problems. and approximately out in front of our building. and which we were promised was not going to happen. on more than one occasion, when trying to leave, my apartment building or to come in my building, i had to ask the cannabis members to move away from the front of the building. and more than once, i was acosted verbally, and when i was, when i went and talked to the attendants at the door i was cussed at and basically told to leave. we have tried over the last couple of years to clean up our neighborhood and we do not need the type of bad element that comes into a neighborhood with these cannabis clubs. there is a cannabis club opened on post at polk street which is
like 50 yards away from the one that are opened right now and so the needs of the neighborhood are being met. we do not need another one. they are not a starbucks or a walgreens and they are not needed on every corner. and i want to make the board for the first time. >> i have a question. >> so, were you attending prior to the club coming? >> i have been a tenant there for 17 years. >> so you came before the cannabis club. >> yes. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please? >> good evening, commissioners. i live in a neighborhood and i am one of the patients that they have been discussing about and that have got compassion, and the other dispensary that he is referring to as being 50
yards away and will not give me anything and i am on low income and we don't that on the neighborhood any more. and it is, and even if they didn't open their anywhere divinity tree didn't open what not matter because it was a compassionate dispensary and they taught me how to sleep bet and her there is a difference between the kinds, and they were knowledgeable. i sleep better now and i am getting better. thanks to the divinny tree. >> albert blake. >> thank you. >> next speaker please? >> yes. hi, my name is pamela clark. and i am in full support of mr. pappas and the tree as a low income and i depend on the places like the tree for compassion and medicine.
and as it helps my arthritis and my so thank you very much. >> okay. >> next speaker please? >> good evening, madam president and fellow commissioner mies name is ed and i am the committee chair of the apprentice program for the uscw cannabis worker's program and soon to be released in the state of california and i am also the executive director of the union cannabis which is the joint group for any collective that is under a collective bargaining agreement and we at the osc w, wholeheartedly, support charlie pappas in the divinty tree and i asked that the rest of the group please stand up for mr. pappas. and i would like to add that you have three members of the legal cannabis task force, and
two i must say who we my dear friends have always been in most cases opposed to anything. when it came to legal cannabis and they are here to support charlie and. and i also want to say if you take a look at it on the yelp page and that really gives a clear testament on what the patient is experiencing, and you will see that it overwhelmingly it was supportive as far as charlie's vet program. and his compassion program, and the way that he worked in the community as a good citizen. and again, it is our request that this body that you reinstate charlie and the permit. and we thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please?
>> good evening my name is (inaudible) and i have come about to know mr. pappas for a few months. and i personally have been cancer survivor for 4 years. and since that happened,vy been really up to and because of my trying to radiation, and the chemo and i came about to using the american maryland and i right-hand and i noticed it and not a pot head and i am account ant by trade and (inaudible) it is safe for the people who cannot afford to pay $65, that is not good quality and we are asking for the permission to open in the same location and may not be able to do so and,
we ask you to give us the permission to open the doors, or the people that were in need of it. and we are seeing he is a man of compassion and mr. sanchez sus not know how difficult it is to find a location and we have been looking timelessly to find a location. but the planning department and they know my face and i was there afternoon and looking at 295, and which is again, under the school's zoning that we cannot have it. and so if you have been trying to look for a location, it is not that we were not. but it is not the grocery store, or the liquor store to just give a permit and open god
bless. >> any other public comment? >> seeing none, then mr. pappas you have three minutes of rebuttal. >> that is okay. >> i just read mr. sanchez for saying how hard they work because why didn't they just tell us that your 18 months ran up in october. the reason for the difference in the closure periods is discretion that the department of public health offered, for the dispensaries that were closed and extended to the december of 2012. as a closure date. you know, and hopes that they would reopen. and so, never answered and you
know, in my letter to the determination. and requests which you can see how thick it is. thank you for indulging all of my... (inaudible) and i want to make it shorter on you folks but as i said i like the permit back and just to have that standing for a new landlord and relocating and i am truly sorry for my neighbor's bad experiences. and what he said, so we would never, allow the people to consume within a block or two of our place, but we were all about our neighbors, and i will talk... and (inaudible) you should have while we were under in 6, and 5 story apartment building, adjacent to two others and across the street from two others. and you know, when we, december 11th, of 2011 (inaudible) met with a local u.s. attorney and we had no problem, getting 50
letters from the neighbors, and you know, ten or 15 letters from the local businesses, and can you really say that the street is better after we left, i really don't think that that is the truth and i ask for your discretion and i am sorry for the unusual nature of this like i said we need a response from the city. and we didn't, too many, too little lack of response from you know our officials elected officials and a lot from... and not enough from most of them. (inaudible) you know, san francisco is a tax and san francisco values were taxed and if you dip in the permit tax, you know, and it is just about impossible that it will reopen there. but still, we would have that status for a new landlord, and so thanks for listening. >> mr. pappas, you understand that this